The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances
Abstract
Organizational research advocates that firms balance exploration and exploitation, yet it acknowledges inherent challenges in reconciling these opposing activities. To overcome these challenges, such research suggests that firms establish organizational separation between exploring and exploiting units or engage in temporal separation whereby they oscillate between exploration and exploitation over time. Nevertheless, these approaches entail resource allocation trade-offs and conflicting organizational routines, which may undermine organizational performance as firms seek to balance exploration and exploitation within a discrete field of organizational activity (i.e., domain). We posit that firms can overcome such impediments and enhance their performance if they explore in one domain while exploiting in another. Studying the alliance portfolios of software firms, we demonstrate that firms do not typically benefit from balancing exploration and exploitation within the function domain (technology versus marketing and production alliances) and structure domain (new versus prior partners). Nevertheless, firms that balance exploration and exploitation across these domains by engaging in research and development alliances while collaborating with their prior partners, or alternatively, by forming marketing and production alliances while seeking new partners, gain in profits and market value. Moreover, we reveal that increases in firm size that exacerbate resource allocation trade-offs and routine rigidity reinforce the benefits of balance across domains and the costs of balance within domains. Our domain separation approach offers new insights into how firms can benefit from balancing exploration and exploitation. What matters is not simply whether firms balance exploration and exploitation in their alliance formation decisions but the means by which they achieve such balance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942 · cited 13×
“The self-reinforcing nature of these routines strengthens the dominant activity while driving out the other (Levinthal and March 1993; March 1991).”
BackgroundInfluentialSpecification Tests in Econometrics
Hausman, J. A. (1978) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913827 · Cited by 18,820
Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0078 · Cited by 3,737 · cited 2×
“(Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; He and Wong, 2004; Jansen, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda, 2006; Sidhu et”
BackgroundJansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576 · Cited by 3,705
Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation
Rothaermel, F. T. (2001) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.180 · Cited by 1,114
Cited by
Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0025 · Cited by 2,580
Clauss, T., Kraus, S., Kallinger, F. L., Bican, P. M., Brem, A., & Kailer, N. (2021) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2020.07.003 · Cited by 363
Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2285704 · Cited by 282
The Role of Ambidexterity in Managing Buyer–Supplier Relationships: The Toyota Case
Aoki, K., & Wilhelm, M. (2017) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1156 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Authors
- Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkopf, L.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1517-1538
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2142332919
- Cited by
- 447
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 26.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.1100.0596
- The paper
- Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkopf, L. (2011). Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0596
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.